So does every dog. This means it thinks its job is to be pack leader. All you have to do is train it that you are the leader of the pack, and it will walk brilliantly at your side.

At a guess, 95% of people haven't trained their dogs not to be pack leader on a walk, and so all get pulled and tugged along and from side to side, while the dog is allowed to sniff and stop and scent-mark, instead of having its attention where it should be, totally on what the pack leader - you - is doing.

When your dog is off the lead, it's not necessarily displaying pack leadership, it's more likely just having fun, investigating and sniffing about. Letting the dog off the lead is usually a sign that it's playtime.

If you turn off and go another way, it will most likely follow you. Walking on the lead, though, is more working than fun. We can't go on hunts with the pack, so walking is the equivalent of hunting. It's work, and someone has to take the lead. That should always be you.

Is that true though?
e.g. A border collie herding sheep spends most of its time out in front but knows that it is quite definitely not the leader.
My guess (and that's all it is) is that a dog can be a happy and docile pack member and still see its job as sniffing and marking territory out in front of the leader.
The leader has allowed it to do the sniffing, so it does the sniffing, it's been allowed to pull the lead so it pulls the lead ... does that mean it thinks its the leader?

The pack leader theory is an old and outdated theory which has scientifically been proved wrong. www.apdt.com/petowners/choose/dominance.aspx

The pack leader theory is an old and outdated theory which has scientifically been proved wrong. www.apdt.com/petowners/choose/dominance.aspx

To be perfectly honest he has other more important issues to deal with rather than who should be walking in front - getting him outside of the property on the lead with just me holding it is the biggest of those problems, he refuses point blank to walk beyond the gate if only one person is taking him to the extent where he goes into a terrified panic mode and will pull so hard backwards that he manages to slip out of his harness - those body harnesses that give you total control over your dog, the ones that they aren't supposed to be able to work out how to get out of, he's Houdini-like when in panic mode.

When he was an adolescent dog his previous owner quite obviously took him out for a walk one day, on his own, tied him to something and abandoned him - try and walk him on your own now and you may as well try and walk a 1 tonne concrete block.

Just out of interest, have you worked with him to coax him out of this habit, like taking two of you to walk him, then letting the second person walk less and less distance with you to the point where he is comfortable with one walker or do two of you always have to walk him? I'm just curious as to how you get around it. Personally if I could always walk him with two I think I would to give him comfort if nothing else. Isn't sad how one incident for him can totally change a behaviour forever.

Quote ="Hull White Star"The pack leader theory is an old and outdated theory which has scientifically been proved wrong. www.apdt.com/petowners/choose/dominance.aspx'" I think you are talking about something completely different. Firstly, you don't need to read any article whatsoever to know that in any predator group there is a dominant animal. That is how it is, whether wolves, dogs, lions, gorillas, deer, whatever. Secondly that there is a very clear, if fluid, pecking order, and that each animal knows its place. (And tbf natural behaviour includes testing the boundaries and making your way up in the pecking order if you can). However the article is not an article about pack leaders, but seems to make the point that the pecking order is maintained, for the most part, peacably and in largely non-violent ways. I'd agree with that, dog language is or can be very subtle, and in evolutionary terms, in any given predator group, it is obviously better if most disputes as to rank are resolved relatively peaceably, or at least with as little bloodshed and damage as possible. Because it is not in the interests of the pack, in the main, to damage each other as that weakens the effectiveness of the group. The article is really speaking against the idea that you train a dog by essentially aggression and violence and cow it into submission. But I entirely agree with that. That's not where I'm coming from at all. Quoting from your article: Quote Even between dogs, however, (dominance) is not achieved through force or coercion but through one member of the relationship deferring to the other peacefully.'" I made the point in my earlier post that to establish yourself as "pack leader" you don't actually need to say a word. You base your dog's behaviour training on dog psychology not human psychology, and it works. In fact you can see it working, and it's an amazing sight. But basically simple, your dog will pick up on cues WHICH MAKE SENSE TO YOUR DOG. It's just knowing what those are.

Quote ="Hull White Star"The pack leader theory is an old and outdated theory which has scientifically been proved wrong. www.apdt.com/petowners/choose/dominance.aspx'" I think you are talking about something completely different. Firstly, you don't need to read any article whatsoever to know that in any predator group there is a dominant animal. That is how it is, whether wolves, dogs, lions, gorillas, deer, whatever. Secondly that there is a very clear, if fluid, pecking order, and that each animal knows its place. (And tbf natural behaviour includes testing the boundaries and making your way up in the pecking order if you can). However the article is not an article about pack leaders, but seems to make the point that the pecking order is maintained, for the most part, peacably and in largely non-violent ways. I'd agree with that, dog language is or can be very subtle, and in evolutionary terms, in any given predator group, it is obviously better if most disputes as to rank are resolved relatively peaceably, or at least with as little bloodshed and damage as possible. Because it is not in the interests of the pack, in the main, to damage each other as that weakens the effectiveness of the group. The article is really speaking against the idea that you train a dog by essentially aggression and violence and cow it into submission. But I entirely agree with that. That's not where I'm coming from at all. Quoting from your article: Quote Even between dogs, however, (dominance) is not achieved through force or coercion but through one member of the relationship deferring to the other peacefully.'" I made the point in my earlier post that to establish yourself as "pack leader" you don't actually need to say a word. You base your dog's behaviour training on dog psychology not human psychology, and it works. In fact you can see it working, and it's an amazing sight. But basically simple, your dog will pick up on cues WHICH MAKE SENSE TO YOUR DOG. It's just knowing what those are.

The border collie isn't in front. The shepherd is the "front" and the collie/s drive the sheep to him.

Border collies take advantage of the herding instinct which involves, essentially, some members of the pack running around the prey and encircling it, and driving it forwards to a convenient ambush point. It is behaviour that comes naturally, a border collie puppy from working stock will run around and behind the sheep even if it never saw one before. Of course, the pack leader (the shepherd) doesn't actually kill the prey, but as pack leader, that's up to him (or her). The border collie is just glad to have helped, doing what comes naturally. In a border collie this is circling and driving the sheep, and even feigning to nip at their heels, to maintain dominance over the "prey" and control it. Some dogs are too aggressive and have a bite at dissident sheep, too much natural aggression and they will face early retirement. The ones that have just the right mix will of course be bred from and so the behaviour is reinforced genetically.


Basically, yes. It thinks (because it hasn't been taught any different) that its job is to lead, and so it leads. Once it is taught that the responsibility of leadership has been taken away from it, it will be a much happier and calmer dog, because it no longer has the stress of leading the "pack" to worry about, it just has to "follow my leader".

Why do you need to be pack leader, you're not a dog and your dog knows that?

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"I think you are talking about something completely different. Firstly, you don't need to read any article whatsoever to know that in any predator group there is a dominant animal. That is how it is, whether wolves, dogs, lions, gorillas, deer, whatever. Secondly that there is a very clear, if fluid, pecking order, and that each animal knows its place. (And tbf natural behaviour includes testing the boundaries and making your way up in the pecking order if you can). However the article is not an article about pack leaders, but seems to make the point that the pecking order is maintained, for the most part, peacably and in largely non-violent ways. I'd agree with that, dog language is or can be very subtle, and in evolutionary terms, in any given predator group, it is obviously better if most disputes as to rank are resolved relatively peaceably, or at least with as little bloodshed and damage as possible. Because it is not in the interests of the pack, in the main, to damage each other as that weakens the effectiveness of the group. The article is really speaking against the idea that you train a dog by essentially aggression and violence and cow it into submission. But I entirely agree with that. That's not where I'm coming from at all. Quoting from your article: I made the point in my earlier post that to establish yourself as "pack leader" you don't actually need to say a word. You base your dog's behaviour training on dog psychology not human psychology, and it works. In fact you can see it working, and it's an amazing sight. But basically simple, your dog will pick up on cues WHICH MAKE SENSE TO YOUR DOG. It's just knowing what those are.'" Try reading this article a little more carefully, it explains the myth of "pack leader". www.leecharleskelley.com/thetop1 ... eader.html [i"Q: What are your thoughts on human to dog hierarchy?" "A: There is strictly no such thing - people are predominantly parent figures to their dogs, not pack leaders in hierchical arrangements and there is a wealth of science from evolutionary biologists to substantiate that view. Social order is seasonally evident in wolves and other wild canids to ensure the success of reproduction, not for any ongoing political reasons."-- Interview with Dr. Peter Neville.[/i

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"I think you are talking about something completely different. Firstly, you don't need to read any article whatsoever to know that in any predator group there is a dominant animal. That is how it is, whether wolves, dogs, lions, gorillas, deer, whatever. Secondly that there is a very clear, if fluid, pecking order, and that each animal knows its place. (And tbf natural behaviour includes testing the boundaries and making your way up in the pecking order if you can). However the article is not an article about pack leaders, but seems to make the point that the pecking order is maintained, for the most part, peacably and in largely non-violent ways. I'd agree with that, dog language is or can be very subtle, and in evolutionary terms, in any given predator group, it is obviously better if most disputes as to rank are resolved relatively peaceably, or at least with as little bloodshed and damage as possible. Because it is not in the interests of the pack, in the main, to damage each other as that weakens the effectiveness of the group. The article is really speaking against the idea that you train a dog by essentially aggression and violence and cow it into submission. But I entirely agree with that. That's not where I'm coming from at all. Quoting from your article: I made the point in my earlier post that to establish yourself as "pack leader" you don't actually need to say a word. You base your dog's behaviour training on dog psychology not human psychology, and it works. In fact you can see it working, and it's an amazing sight. But basically simple, your dog will pick up on cues WHICH MAKE SENSE TO YOUR DOG. It's just knowing what those are.'" Try reading this article a little more carefully, it explains the myth of "pack leader". www.leecharleskelley.com/thetop1 ... eader.html [i"Q: What are your thoughts on human to dog hierarchy?" "A: There is strictly no such thing - people are predominantly parent figures to their dogs, not pack leaders in hierchical arrangements and there is a wealth of science from evolutionary biologists to substantiate that view. Social order is seasonally evident in wolves and other wild canids to ensure the success of reproduction, not for any ongoing political reasons."-- Interview with Dr. Peter Neville.[/i

Is that a serious question? Well, assuming it is, I would reply that if the dog understands that I and the wife are the decision makers, then the dogs can relax and simply look to us for decisions, instead of stressing over thinking they have to do everything themselves.

The comment about not being a dog is a bit strange. It doesn't matter, though. So far as the dogs are concerned we are all a pack, it is all they understand. Live together = pack.


There are happy, contented de-stressed well-behaved dogs, and there are those that aren't. I have the former.


Remarkable. A prey that in thousands of years has not actually been eaten, then?


Yes, I tend to agree, but why would a dog tend to gravitate to someone "who exudes confidence"?


Indeed. Not least, I think, in your perception of my posts and the issues I am discussing. I am - and intend to be - the dogs LEADER. I do not seek to establish DOMINANCE OVER THEM. They understand that I am in charge and they are very happy with that. They do not behave as they do out of fear of me, or fear of reprisals, but because they like it that way and are content for it to be that way.

No they don't, read my above article especially the quote I have quoted from it. Carry on arguing all you like but you are arguing with the expert behaviourists who disagree with you.

They disagree with me? I don't see my name, or anything I have said, quoted or disagreed with. Exactly where do they "disagree" with me?

I think it is YOU who needs to read your cited article. It is not arguing that there is no such thing as a pack. Quite the opposite.

OTOH, I can SEE the concepts I am talking about in real life action, with my dogs, and the many dogs I owned previously. So I'm not talking in the abstract. Also, I know expert behaviourists. I have had dogs trained by expert behaviourists. I don't have much surprise if there are varying opinions in any complex field but I think the problem is largely you misreading my position.

What is it you think I am "arguing" with? Do you actually even know?

I've been having a brief browse through some of the stuff posted by your Mr Kelley. For example:


I entirely agree that a dog must be brought out of an excited state into one of calm and no stress, before its behaviour can be modified. I wouldn't quite agree that "the right behaviour will always follows" - as the dog doesn't naturally know what you cnsider the "right behaviour" to be - but in a calm stae, it will be amenable to, and will soon, learn it.

The interesting thing I found was that Kelley espouses what he calls'"Natural Dog Training".

Well, quite. I myself gave the example of a young border collie being naturally able to exhibit herding abilities instinctively, and that is just how it works.


"Obedience", right? But obeying whom? And why? Surely not someone from whom the dog takes its lead? Like, say, the shepherd with the whistle?

I would incidentally, repeat the distinction I made earlier between addressing a dog's [ibehaviour[/i and [iobedience[/i. Some things are not the dog's natural choice but they are happy to be trained to obey, as well as to behave.

I can recommend you a dog trainer who will help you sort this out in one session, if you want his details PM me.

Its quite a complex problem and a little irrational to a human, and I possibly over-complicated things some time ago too.

Basically when we picked him up from the Dogs Trust he was fine, would walk with me alone to a large nearby playing field where he loves (still loves) chasing a ball around but I believe that at the time it was all new to him and he was acting very subversent to me basically clinging to me as the one who fed him every night.

Once he got a little more confident and settled then his phobia kicked in and it soon became apparent that he would not walk with one person, was fine with two, but with one he'll get to the end of the drive and panic - and you can see it in his eyes, its sheer panic and even food won't distract him (a Dogs Trust training trick), its quite upsetting to see actually.

What I did find at this time was that he was perfectly happy getting into the car so I'd load him up and drive to a park where he'd quite happily walk with me alone - its the leaving of the house and walking beyond the car where it kicks in, as soon as he sees that we are one on one and we're not going in the car then the panic hits.

Problem was that he soon started to have problems with confinment in the car, I had him in the rear of a hatchback with a steel tubular dog guard, he bit through the steel tube and demolished it in three sessions, I replaced this with a steel mesh dog guard and tie wrapped and jubilee clipped it to the head restraints - it lasted a few weeks until he'd wrecked it and chewed the back off one of the car seats trying to get out, I bought a harness with a seat belt and fastened him to the back seat but he bit through the seat belt material at his first attempt - all he wants to do is be free of restraint and sit in the front with me, which I won't allow - I've got a new car and he's banned from it



We haven't tried your trick and may give that a go, meanwhile we're taking him in pairs or I run him very hard in the garden chasing after a ball and treats, its not what I want though and is far from ideal.

Hope they are members of APDT which I guess they are not as no APDT trainer will claim to "sort out" a problem in just one session. It can takes many many months if at all to sort out the sort of trauma that JC's dog has.

My only problem is that I know that if a stranger spent five minutes associating with him then he would let them lead him down the street with no problem in the same way that he did with me when he first came to us, we've tried this with our in-laws who live in the north east on the one or two occasions that they've visited our house.

We've just got to keep persevering with him because he's a gorgeous dog otherwise and there is no way that I want to cause him any more trauma in his life.

You are arguing that you have to be pack leader:



I (and most trainers now) are arguing that there is no such thing. There is a big difference between pack and pack leader. I have quoted from the article by Mr Kelly and an article from the APDT which clearly states that there is no such thing as being pack leader or in your words" train the dog that you are leader of the pack" which is if I'm reading it correct you are saying you train the dog as you being a dominant (not using dominant methods, thats another thing) pack leader, ie you "show him who's boss", which is just not scientifically correct anymore therefore your way of thinking and application of methods is wrong (according to the experts).

No problems with my dog, we both know who the boss is



Him

No, in the context of going for a walk the dog understands that i am the pack leader. Once it gets that, it is happy to let me lead. Misconstrue as much as you want but the reason my dog happily walks at my chosen pace and in my chosen direction paying attention to me, and not to distractions, is because it knows and accepts that I am leading and it is following.


I think you are off on some arcane flight of fancy and not dealing with simple basics of dog behaviour. It is in this context pure semantics. It is clear to anyone that dog will happily do what you want it to do, if it accepts that it takes its lead and direction from you. I am happy to refer to that as being, in the context of the desired behaviour, the leder, and the dog thus the follower, if you like, but you can call it whatever you want. The end result is the same - I am calling the shots, and the dog is extremely content to follow my lead.


I would not use the word dominant because in the context you are using it you are suggesting the dog is doing what is expected out of fear or subservience or inferiority. I am trying to say that that is not how it works, the dog is bred in such a way that it is happy to take a secondary place and leave the decisions to its owners (well, in the case of most domestic breeds anyway) but here's the key - the dog is HAPPY to do this, it isn't being "dominated" as you put it. If you want to be pedantic, you could say that I am the dominat one in the relationship but that is just semantics, and misleading, as I don't dominate the dog - it just understands that I am in charge, and is relaxed and happy in that knowledge. This is a key distinction.


What do you mean by that? You keep suggesting by the phrases you use that there is some form of coercion, aggression or domination or something going on. Whereas I have repeatedly explained that the methods I have been taught to correct your dog's behaviour don't even involve saying a single word - much less any screaming, shouting, beating, telling off or anything of the sort. The dog "gets" that I am the decision maker of the things I want to be the decision maker of, and it is happy with that.

I would only say that the dog has to be happy with that, that is fundamental. It doesn't behave in a certain way out of fear or intimidation, but because it accepts and likes the situation.


There are thousands of "experts", and they have a wide variety of opinions. You shouldn't assume that one particular person has all the answers and anyone on the planet who disagrees is of necessity wrong. Be that as it may, however, as I haven't stated or been asked to state anything specific at all about any single method I use, I'd be interested to know how you feel able to say this.

And cost many months of recurring fees, eh? Hmmm....

The truth is, I have seen the trainer "sort out" common behavioural problems in one session. He's done it for me. Other more deep-seated issues he can effect an immediate and noticeable improvement. In each case he will explain what is going on, teach the owner the techniques to continue to address the issue to maintain the change in behaviour, or in more complex issues, to improve and eliminate it in time. The main thing there is that apart from anything else the owner would now understand what the issue is and why it is there, be trained in the methods of dealing with it, and then armed with that you are well on the way to resolving it.

I mentioned earlier this evening JC's specific problem to this trainer over the phone and he has previously dealt with a similar case, it isn't new to him.

And if he claims he can sort it in one session than he can't be a very good trainer as a trainer would understand how deep rooted the problem is and will be able to see that it will take a good deal of time, patience, understanding. The first session would be about getting to know you and your dog before a method is even worked out on the way to go.

As for pack leader, we'll agree to disagree. I've linked articles that scientifically disagree, I even linked a quote from a revered behaviourist that he even says we are more like parents than a pack leader to back up my point, I haven't seen any proof of yours.

Unbelievably and in that way that dogs do just to throw you, we've just had our first solo walk (for a long time) using a couple of distraction techniques that have not worked previously, if I can get him beyond the end of the street AND walking fast AND on a long lead so that he doesn't feel restrained AND with the aid of a very smelly dog sausage then he'll continue albeit that there are memory points on the walk that he recognises as being turning points for home, we got to one this morning and he almost hit panic mode trying to turn back so I let him on this occasion - little and often, next time we won't go to that corner



Fortunately I'm off work this week so plenty of time for dog therapy.

I'm knackered now though.

Thats brilliant.

Its really satisfying when you see progress being made albeit just a small one. I use the distraction technique when Starbug asked me about approaching on lead dogs. I've also used it this morning as I deviated my route this morning as I had to take Mr HWS car to garage and didn't want it smelling of wet, muddy dog, so went down the old railway line but its continuous bikes so I used that method to bring them close to me and wait until the bike has passed us. It can work well as it did for me, until they spotted a whole loaf of bread just dumped, so it was on the lead and we turned around and came back because I knew they would just keep running back to it.



If you see him panicking, let him go home, tomorrows another day. Like I said, he has such a deep rooted problem that it may never be solved, but for me, just making the progress you have today is by far more satisfying then having a "quick fix" that may solve the problem today, but may not solve his underlying issues for tomorrow.

Not very obediant or well trained after all, mine does what he's told

He has sorted out problems for me with one session. It is no good you claiming he can't - he does. This does not mean quite a miracle "cure", for want of a better word, you are left with the tools to continue to work on the behaviour, and it may take you some time to work on it, but usually, he won't need to come back. This is what I mean by sorted. Not sprinkling some instant magic dust.


You're obsessing on the phrase "pack leader" because you read something, but you would be better off trying to understand the situation on the ground. Whether dogs, if they could talk, would use the phrase pack leader, parent, or pak choi, the point is, they know who the decision makers are. Your remark, in this context, is pure semantics.

You also misunderstand your own research. Parents are in the main a permanent and immutable fixture. So how do you explain that a trainer whom the dogs have never seen before can walk in and quickly be able to control their behaviour? My explanation is he knows a lot about how they think and about behaviour, and relationships in the dog world, and is able to give out the cues that dogs naturally understand. They quickly "get it" and are happy to take their lead from him. You, presumably, could only explain this phenomenon by saying that the dogs must have sacked me and promoted him to parent!? What happens when he leaves, then?